167 Responses to “Editorial Policy”

Pollbludger isnt legally Billbowes as a trademark, but it’s synonymous with William Bowe’s work.

Since he’s asked for it to be changed, his request ought to be respected if for no other reason than he created Pollbludger, his work on his site created this community and riding off the tails of another persons site name after they’ve asked for it to cease (regardless of the circumstances, the best of intentions or the complications along the way) is just not a “good thing”

Changing site names is simple – start a new blog name, go to the admin backend, go to Manage, then import, click wordpress and follow the instructions.

The entire site is then moved across to the new one, including comments.

But it needs to be done guys.

I appreciate the complexity of what happened leading up to pollbludger.wordpress.com, but the bullet really needs to bit.. so to speak.

possum-
Greens though I am, and Laborite marsupial that you are…
I love you.
I really really really hope that those of us that have become part of the OzBlog community can move on and be separate but connected, if you know what I mean- bit like you and Bilbo for example.
But if someone fed off our site and called it PossumUS, I would not like it.
Sorry Guys, not trying to cause disharmony, but do have to stand by what appears right.

Max-
Alright. I am at major fault – forgive me. You are now welded into my psyche as the person that was Totally Wrong, But Put Me Onto the West Wing: accolades and flowers.
now stop punishing me.: I was overwraught.
As for the Olympics – when do they start?
(And who cares?)

I think it’s all a question of good will and good relations. William let’s far too much criticism of this site and it’s posters, slide, on his own site. As a casual observer, you can’t help but come to the conclusion that he endorses some of it and get’s a chuckle out of other of it. I can understand if the convener’s of this site feel aggrieved and balk at this sudden desire to play fair and all do what’s right, for the good of the country, or whatever…..Just a layman’s opinion.

The name is not that important provided key words are used for the site to attract people with an interest in US election. Suggest not putting US in name if there is any thought of dealing with Oz issues as well.

William obviously wishes to maintain a “moderate” character on his site which is his option but given the lack of intelligent conservative contributions that is very difficult.
This site currently has a somewhat left/green direction but that doesn’t mean that strong debate can’t occur on all sorts of issues.

The site just needs to avoid allowing comment/attack to get personal and to deal with people who don’t want to follow sensible rules in a straight-forward way. Sorting wheat from chaff is useful – getting distracted by people who want to cause mischief is not smart and can just look like blood sport.

Catrina- I understood pretty much nothing of the tech stuff, but get the idea that there is a whole new separate independent site happening.
(Do we have a name yet?)
Thanks for all your dedication and work – amazing!!

Catrina- I understood pretty much nothing of the tech stuff, but get the idea that there is a whole new separate independent site happening.

Your absolutely correct. The technical restrictions under the current infrastructure make things very difficult for long term maintenance whereas getting our own site up and operation means we will be able to tweak whatever we want.

(Do we have a name yet?)

No – this is linked to the domain naming aspect – I’m planning on using a subdomain of an existing domain – which sounds technical but really translates to “it will not cost us anything”.

megan at 115

However,happy to donate towards bandwidth/running costs as I previously have with William.

I’m aiming for something that is completely free from financial support. It’s not a done deal yet – but if things play out according to the plan we will be truly independent. For the moment – keep fingers crossed!

I would like to thank you all for this site .It is a pleasure to visit.Informative,witty,passionate and most of all none of the petty nastiness that goes on at other sites.I don’t know how many times I have laughed out loud at comment by Jen and KR, or EC with his morning dose of cartoons.Your gathering in Brissy should be a hoot.I know Poss is busy educating the ignorant,and doing a very good job as usual, but if he shows up for your party could you please have a word to him about popping back into this site occasionally.Thanks again.

This is my list of who(m) I think should be invited – and apologies to anyone I have forgotten:- apart from those previously mentioned
Swing Lowe
Jaundiced View
Max
Zoom
Grace
Tabitha (ok – kidding)
And obviously- Diogenes, Socartes and all other great sages from the classics
..please add others.
This election is like no other in my lifetime that I can recall. And none of them had te internet – so lets honour the significance. Add your suggested names. Even if they don’t get there in person we can use the technology to make this an incredible day to tell our grandchildren about.

Now that we have placed Barry in a proper position busily setting up the organisation he needs to run the USA, perhaps we can look at other parts of the world, of course still keeping a close eye to see whether he needs our undoubted wisdom and encouragement.
This being Australia, most of us have roots in other parts of the world. For some, their understanding of their country/countries of origin may still be stuck at the point when they left it. It would be interesting to see how things have changed in the countries we or our ancestors left to come to Australia.
For some like myself, the ancestor roots go far back, from Europe (Holland, Germany, France, Scotland) to Africa, and finally to England then Australia.
All these places have changed substantially since first the ancestors emigrated, or more recently when I and my family moved on.
Our memory of our places of origin are of course tainted by our situation and the policies in place at the time we left. Things have surely changed, whether for better or worse. It would also be interesting to see how our understanding of our country of origin has changed as we grew older, and history moved on. Not all would have seen as massive changes as I see looking at South Africa, the country I still see as my homeland, but things change and attitudes change even over quite a short period.
Any suggestions?

EC – have just updated the Deer Hunting with Jesus page (removing extraneous XML and cleaned up the table). Let me know if there are any issues. While I’m here I’ll also mention that the picture up at the top has been updated as well – John McCain is dumped in favour of Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

Thank you, Catrina. Second try: EC’s assertion that I deleted his comment about Peter van Onselen is mistaken. You can see the comment here. It did go into automatic moderation when it was posted because EC was using a name he hadn’t used before, and all first-time comments go into moderation. I cleared it the moment I became aware of it without a second’s thought. I don’t know where EC got the idea that it “lasted two minutes onsite before it was censored”, because that most certainly did not occur.

G’Day William,
Always a pleasure to hear from you. I accept your explanation that your site’s spaminator was the culprit and withdraw any inference that my comment was censored by you. Similarly, neither was your comment in response censored, as Catrina pointed out in “Editorial Policy” last evening.

Non-rancourous* Regards,

Ecky.

* Most aspirationally literate English descendants spell the word with a “u”. Your independent antipodean streak is duly noted and admired.

—————————-

For the record, here is William’s email to me after my censorship comments had “been brought to my(his) attention”.

Good gracious, Ticsters, monitors are lurking! Monitors are lurking!!

Hi,

Your comment at #266 at P101 has been brought to my attention. The comment to which you refer went automatically into moderation because you were using a name you hadn’t used before, and all first-time comments go into moderation. I cleared it from moderation the moment I became aware of it without a second’s thought. I don’t know where you got the idea that it “lasted two minutes onsite before it was censored”, because that most certainly did not occur.

I’ve added a new link category ‘Aggregators’ and moved TPM, RCP, HP, and Politico to this section. This change cleans up the content under the News and Analysis groups to more properly reflect real news and analysis.

Political capital is primarily based on a public figure’s favorable image among the populace and among other important actors in or out of the government. A politician gains political capital by virtue of his or her position, and also by pursuing popular policies, achieving success with initiatives, performing favors for other politicians, etc. Political capital must be spent to be useful, and will generally expire by the end of a politician’s term in office. In addition, it can be wasted, typically by failed attempts to promote unpopular policies that are not central to a politician’s agenda.

My reference to ‘political capital’ was made in the frame of your eminent standing in this community and in the context of your recent remarks. I was attempting to point out that comments that attack individuals (any comments, any individuals) are not a part of what we as a community want – and that my perception of your ‘political capital’ here dropped as a direct consequence of some of the comments of the last couple of pages. I should point out that on your substantive position – you and I are for the most part in agreement. However – if someone, anyone roles up with a dramatically different opinion, my view is that it is our job is to rebut that opinion by convincing everyone in this community that our shared opinion holds a greater credibility, a greater truth – even if our opponent holds a better truth. Because chances are that the better truth maybe what we think about in those small hours of the night – and what if that better truth wins out after we are done and dusted?

Doesn’t that single question justify a doubt – and the benefit thereof?

Is that another ‘group think’ thing?

Group-think? You have my opinion blazing on the post, you have EC’s opinion in a comment (an opinion somewhat divorced from my own). You have DG doing his Spok impersonation and HSW doing his ‘comment integrity police watch’ thing (and I know how that feels). You have the option to write a new post. How does this equate to group think? It doesn’t.

My request to you is:

1. No attacks on the person, any person, just the content.
2. If you feel attacked – email me (or post a note here on the Editorial Policy page) and if it’s reasonable, I’ll deal with it in your favour with a vengeance that will turn your skin cold and a force that will make you re-evaluate the natural order of the universe.

If I do argue facts all I get is snide innuendo and patronising crap back.

This blog, is unfortunately, an exercise in group think, and any attempt to discuss ideas where that involves going outside the small circle of ‘accepted’ opinion is met with ridicule, not argument.

Go back and see. Time after time.

Why someone as analytical and intelligent as DG even bothers is beyond me, and he deserves sainthood for even bothering. But he’s the butt of the closed circle (and minds, I might add) jokes.

I don’t for ‘do popularity’ or whatever it is you think holds this joint together.

It sure isn’t ideas.

I stand up for what I believe is correct based on the facts as I see them, argue them, and defend them and will not be brow beaten or patronised by verbose old windbags who only want a platform for their waffle. And then get the little minions snapping from the sidelines, whilst contributing nothing but nasty and petty little comments. I didn’t see you slapping them down! LOL

If that’s what you are defending, and it appears you are, then like I said, good luck. It’s your ‘club’, run it how you like mate, I seriously do not care. But note this: most of the thinkers (I’ll exclude DG) have left.

Editorial discretion applied against comment #232 on the grounds that it was simply an attempt at baiting another member of the community while disparaging anyone holding a divergent opinion. Comment #258 also edited on the grounds that getting all bitchy is just so last century. I have also taken out the rubbish on the previous two pages (it’s a dirty job but someone has to do it).

As long as someone uses flowery over-puffed rhetoric to be insulting, you don’t object.

Oh, the cunning use of rhetoric in the delivery of an insult. That I don’t mind providing that the cunning in the rhetoric can be parsed to mean different things – but that is the point of cunning bit of the ‘cunningly rhetoric’ equation. In contrast – that last bit on your #232 comment was an example of rhetoric without cunning. After all, even Arnold Schwarzenegger knows how to send a message while maintaining plausible deniability.

And once again, ask yourself where all the thinkers have gone.
Probably got pretty bored with the ‘enforced’ group think too.
Chalk up another one.

Just like everyone here, you’re welcome to stay, you’re welcome to go, and should you go you should know that you will be welcome back any time. Thing is, those quirky editorial policies will be standing no matter what you choose.

At the risk of inflaming the situation again, and please feel free to delete this if you think it will do that, Cat, I must say I’m disappointed that KR has so publicly exited the blog. KR is capable of writing some really interesting stuff when he is not trying to corral the blog into a resemblance of the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times. If the supposed groupthink of this site, such as KR sees it, is the thing he sees as necessary to dedicating himself to railing against then perhaps a reassessment of life’s priorities may be in order.

Since the launch of this site we have enabled users to self register as subscribers, allowing administrative updates of accounts as required for people to write posts and stuff. Over the last few months the site has been subject to automated account creation operations that have exceeded spam messages in quantity. In response I have disable self registration. From here on anyone wanting to request an account should post a note here and I’ll take care of it.

I had decided I was going to ignore the UK election. Like many others, I have been angry at the Labour Party for getting involved with Bush and the Iraq War and have found their policies to be far more conservative than I had liked. I had expected a lot more from British Labour, particularly on the European front. But what are they offering? No entry to the Euro. No entry to Schengen (borderless Europe). I see Europe as a major part of the many ways to world peace. Britain under Labour wasn’t leading.

But what was the alternative? A return to Thatcherism under the Conservative Tory Party. In other words, a lose/lose situation.

Then bingo! Out of nowhere come the Liberal Democrats. Nick Clegg grabbed world headlines for his party as a result of a very good showing in the first of three debates, and polls now show that the Labour Party may be forced into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. They have lost a little bit of momentum since the first debate, but there is still a good chance they could form a coalition with Labour.

The mainstream media, led by arch villain Rupert Murdoch, went berserk! Throwing all sorts of bullshit at the Liberal Democrats. Most of it was contrived. So much so that most of the general public didn’t buy it. May be Britain does have a real alternative to the two parties controlled by the establishment. I don’t know. But I would certainly love the chance to find out.

Nick Clegg is also very big on Europe. On that point alone Nick has won me. Nick has also said Brown must go, as part of the coalition deal. Two out of two ain’t bad.

On top of The Huffington Post Article I received this email from The Daily Kos.

We often don’t know what’s at stake in an election until it’s too late. Fortunately, Republicans in DC have been up front with us. (I know crazy, right?) Over the past month, they made it clear they will hand over Medicare to private insurance companies if they win the 2012 elections.

This is a good thing, because now we have another excellent reason to stand up and fight them. That’s why we’re sending John Boehner a cake, with the signatures of Daily Kos community members underneath it, thanking him for guaranteeing we will be fired up for 2012.

Click here to add your name to the petition that will appear underneath the thank you cake.

Here’s what happened:

On April 5, Paul Ryan released the Republican budget plan, which called for deep cuts to Medicare and the privatization of whatever is left.
On April 15, only two House Republicans voted against this budget.
On May 5, John Boehner said that Republicans wouldn’t push for this budget now because it can’t pass while Democrats control the Senate and the White House. However, Boehner made it clear that Republicans still strongly backed the plan.

That’s about as straight forward as Republicans are ever going to be. They are going to slash and privatize Medicare as soon as they control the House, the Senate and the White House.

The rowdy reception Republicans received at town halls last month was a sample of the blowback they are getting from this, but let’s give them another taste—in cake form! Click here to thank John Boehner for finally being honest about the Republican plan to destroy Medicare.

Keep fighting,
Chris Bowers
Campaign Director, Daily Kos

As well each of their potential presidential candidates has imploded shortly after they announced their decision to run. Well at least two have, and one announced he won’t run. As they self-destruct or withdraw, and they are slowly eliminating the potential candidates, one person is quietly sitting on the sidelines watching the carnage: Sarah Palin, my personal choice for the destruction of the Republicans. There is a LONG WAY to go yet. But after the let down of last year I am beginning to become more optimistic.

As I write this, something has clicked which had not previously occurred to me. My best hope for the senate, in my wildest dreams, would be to pick up two extra states over and above a swing of 5% on the 2008 elections for the Democrats to get anything done. Those states would preferably be the difficult to obtain ones of Arizona and Texas. Both states have retiring senators, and given the path of self destruction that the Republicans are currently on, (and will hopefully continue on till November 2012) the Democrats will nab them. They would then attain 62 seats in the senate, giving them a gap of 4 votes, not two as I had been wrongly assuming. This may be enough to bypass any Blue Dog block and enable a flood of legislation to pass. Meanwhile back in the real world, Walter Mitty says tell im ya dreamin. I am not a praying man, but till November 2012 I will be facing Mecca an awful lot.  I think another sex scandal would be really nice. About 3 months out from the election and running right up to Election Day.

The unpopularity of certain state governors will also help the Democrats, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Florida, Maine and Ohio in particular. Massachusetts has a BIG party machine behind it so Scott Brown should be swept away with the Democrat tide. The Democrats have a big voter registration. Just paint him Republican. Lets hope we get two strong liberals in Connecticut & Massachusetts would REALLY help the Democrats. No Blue Dogs allowed. Tip for the Democrats: if you are lucky enough to get 62 in the senate pass 2 years of popular things with the voters to wipe them out in 2014. It’s called governing by popularism.  Copying Australia’s National Broadband Network would be a great start.
United States Senate elections, 2012http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012

I would like to mark the passing of Jack aka Enemy Combatant.
On the day President Obama lands in Australia, despite the disappointments Ecky felt at his shortcomings I reckon he would be pretty chuffed at the sight of Obi and Julia hugging on the tarmac in Canberra, compared to the old men Bush and Howard imposing their last century grip on our lives.